Ok Larry, you're quick to shoot down the 2nd Amendment. (pun intended) What's your solution to the problem?
-----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:42 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Iran No the part about a well regulated militia is very clear. That has been defined since the 1670's and before. The framers were very clear on what it meant. An organized body of military aged men who train on a weekly basis to protect the community. Such definitions go back to when the first New England colonies were founded and expanding. Typically in the colony's charter. Militia companies were an integral part of the communities in the early 1600's during King Phillip's War. In fact the oldest active militia is the Honourable and Ancient Artillery Company of Boston has a similar phrase in its 1658 charter. So my take on it is that the militia was a formalized part of the community with a specific roles, duties and obligations. Some communities required all military aged freemen to join, wile others had much looser requirements. One reason why the other aspects of the 2nd amendment were added may have been because of the miserably way most militia companies were equipped. Many of the members of such units did not have firearms at all. -- A historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Don Higginbotham Ph.D. '59, says, "In the colonial period and in the Revolution, it was not uncommon for a high percentage of the militia to turn out without guns. Moreover, as Michael Bellesiles says, the colonial and state governments not infrequently bought guns for men to use. In 1794, Secretary of War Henry Knox reported that of 450,000 men in the state militias, only about 100,000 owned arms." -- From The Culture of the Gun by Don Bliwise, Duke Alumini Magazine, Volume 87, No.3, March-April 2001 http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/030401/culture.html So you can still argue that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is still mostly a state's right to a military force independent of the federal government, and intended for defense. larry On 12/19/05, Tim Heald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are a student Larry. You know what the framers intended it mean, > however you choose to ignore that since you don't like what they intended. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:23 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Iran > > > > The phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the > > security of a free state," is frequently and most conviently > > forgotten about in the pro gun lobby's propaganda effort. The > > full amendment is "A well regulated militia, being necessary > > to the security of a free state, the right of the people to > > keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." > > > > The common legal consensus, and one that the SCOTUS has > > followed for over a century now is that the second amendment > > mainly refers to protections afforded the individual states > > regarding the establishment of reserves and the National > > Guard, and not to allow any drooling idiot the right to > > purchase a 50 cal. machine gun. > > > > larry > > > > > > On 12/19/05, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What are you talking about? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:14 AM > > > Subject: Re: Iran > > > > > > > > > > how about the entire 2nd amendment, and not the edited > > version that > > > > the NRA propaganda machine keeps spouting. > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > On 12/19/05, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> So I guess this brings up the 2nd Amendment. Are you > > for/against > > > >> it, and why? > > > >> > > > >> - Matt > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> > > > >> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:07 AM > > > >> Subject: Re: Iran > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Ugh. That's disgusting. > > > >> > > > > >> > On 12/19/05, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> >> http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm > > > >> >> > > > >> >> - Matt > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:188739 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
